Criticism: Towards a better game review structure

There's a lot of dissatisfaction regarding how games are reviewed coming from a number of quarters; there is an equally vociferous defense of the typical numerically-based reviews. Over at GameSetWatch, Simon Parkin takes up the issue of the reviewer-reader divide, especially in terms of what readers want out of a review (even if they don't know it).

Ever since sony black listed them from reviewing there games, kotaku has been hating them ever since. I am glad sony doesnt take crap from these losers. Just look at all the crappy info they try and do just to talk down on MGS4. Please if u dont like the game go play Halo 3 since alot of u analyst overhype the crap out of these games with mediocre storyline.

funny, some say they are anti Nintendo or Anti Microsoft.... maybe its just blindness? we wanna see what we want to see?

OT: Reviews can be totall BS in my opinion, as long they leave out RATINGS. How the hell does one come up with a Float? how the hell can a human mind say " no i dont think its a 0.4 but a 0.5 . Its based on complete BS. If they leave out the ratings, the only thing that would be left over is the wall of text. People either read them because the reviewer is good, or they ignore him because he is writing totall bullsh/t.

They could tell you BS but in the end they give the game a 9 and people will be hyped as hell.